Hubbard, CIMT 522, FINAL #2, Fall ‘09
Final Exam 2
CIMT 522
Introduction to Cataloguing & Classification
Fall 2009 ～ Patterson
I. In a brief paragraph discuss any 3 of the following 5. Your
discussion should clearly identify the term, concept, or process and
then explain its significance to practicing librarians/media specialists
and to the library/media profession. Each answer is worth 10 points.
Please note that the best way to deal with these terms is to:
1. first define the term;
2. then discuss its significance within the context of the course;
1. Aboutness
Aboutness is the decision that a cataloguer must make when determining
what a particular item is about. This decision must be made independently
from the classification system being used; it must be an objective
assessment of its content. There are several ways in which the
“aboutness” of an item can be established, though some ways are more
effective than others. First, a cataloguer can look at the title for clues to the
subject content, but that is not really the best way to make a determination
because titles can often be misleading. Often, the subtitle will give better
clues to an item’s content. Read the cover, jacket, and content pages to help
with the assessment. In the case of very difficult material, it is okay to use
outside reference sources to determine subject content. Sometimes, other
catalogue records will provide subject headings and other clues to a
resource’s content; this is a good way to confirm “aboutness” and is a
sensible solution when dealing with a difficult-to-classify item. Fine
1
2
2. Controlled vocabulary searching
Controlled Vocabulary Searching requires the searcher to choose from a list
of authorized subject headings and cross-references in order to get the
highest number of relevant “hits” for a subject search.  When cataloguing
an item, a cataloguer must first decide what that item is about (its
“aboutness”) and then he/she must apply subject headings drawn from a
particular subject authority. nice way of getting into this! The Library of
Congress Subject Headings is the most comprehensive and specific of the
subject authorities available to both cataloguers and researchers. School
and smaller public libraries may opt for the Sears List of Subject Headings,
which is broader in scope and has a more simplified vocabulary than the
LC’s index. There are also subject authorities for specific fields, such as
Medical Subject Headings or the Art & Architecture Thesaurus. All of these
subject authorities are comprised of controlled vocabularies, which makes
sharing cataloguing records across libraries much simpler than if each
library used its own unique list of headings.here it would be good also to
contrast this with keyword searching or searching without use of controlled
vocabularies
3. ILS
4. Users’ groups
5. OCLC
OCLC, which stands for Online Computer Library Center, is headquartered
in Dublin, Ohio, and is an international bibliographic network of library
records.  Millions of catalogue records are shared by thousands of
member libraries through WorldCat, OCLC’s online bibliographic
database. Library co-ops have the ability to share items through
interlibrary lending agreements and record sharing through OCLC. OCLC
provides a great deal of support to its member libraries through access to
bibliographic records, software to manage and edit records, training and
tutorials, member forums, and research databases.good It is the world’s
largest library consortium.Perhaps a little more precision on where these
records come from, e.g., contributed by the member libraries
Answers in this section are fine!
3
II. Submit an essay at least 2.5 pages in length, double-spaced, and
in a standard 12-point font, that addresses 1 of the 2 following
questions. Use examples to illustrate your main points, when
appropriate, and remember the basic writing guidelines outlined in
Write Right. Be sure to begin your essay by providing the complete
text of the question that you select to answer.
I know that time is limited and do not expect your paper to look as
though you spent several days researching it. There is no single magic
answer hidden within the text(s). Instead, think carefully and
critically about everything we have read and discussed to offer your
own insights. Support your arguments vigorously and soundly. Ideas
borrowed must be documented fully, and your paper should end with a
proper conclusion.
1. Using the library catalogues listed below locate at least 5 recent
good quality information sources dealing with the subject: training for
longer distance bicycle road races. Note carefully that this subject
is not necessarily phrased using “official” LSCH or Sears subject
headings.
MNCAT Plus at the University of Minnesota Libraries at:
http://prime2.oit.umn.edu:1701/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do
?vid=TWINCITIES&fromLogin=true
The Lamson Library and Learning Commons (Plymouth State University)
catalogue at:
http://library.plymouth.edu/
4
The Queens (New York) Library catalogue at:
http://aqua.queenslibrary.org/
Then submit a well-considered critical essay in which you assess the
performance of these catalogues. Your essay should focus upon two
primary concerns: 1. the functioning of these systems as traditional
library OPACS; and 2. the degree to which these OPACs go beyond the
traditional to provide discovery tools, library 2.0 features, and address
long standing criticisms of older generation OPACs. Think critically
and take the time to explore the systems thoroughly, using your
knowledge of everything from tracings and subject headings to MARC
records and tagging.
Keep in mind that you are not evaluating the size of these library
collections (who has the most books, the most money to spend, etc.),
but rather the quality of the OPACs. Consider their strengths and
weaknesses as information tools for the digital generation in the age of
Google, Facebook, iPhones, Kindles, and Twitter. Conclude your paper
by discussing which catalogue is the best and why? Address the
following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Speed & ease of use
Attractiveness & “curb appeal”
Surprises, good & bad
Ability to deliver exactly what you want & nothing else, in the shortest
possible time & with the least effort. The quality of precision & recall
Strengths & weaknesses of each & what each could learn from the other
Frustrations. Problems encountered & how you dealt with them
How these compare with OPACs you have used in the past or may be using
now
How these compare with library competitors such as Amazon, Google, etc.
Evidence of Web 2.0, Lib 2.0, and discovery
The positioning of these catalogues on their respective library Web site visà-vis other features & resources of the library
Quality of cataloguing at each library
Viability for the school library scene
5
o Recommendations for improving each
In the quest for information regarding “training for longer distance bicycle road races,”
three online library catalogs (OPAC’s) were explored for their precision and usability for the
average library patron. The three OPACS’s were MNCAT Plus at the University of
Minnesota Libraries, The Lamson Library and Learning Commons at Plymouth State
University, and The Queens Library in New York. There were quite a few differences
between these three OPAC’s in terms of their functionality and precision.
The first OPAC explored was the one belonging to the University of Minnesota Libraries,
called MNCAT Plus. On the surface, this OPAC seemed to be very effective. There is a
detailed review of its many services on the opening search page. It says that it has the
capability of “Google-style searching,” and promises “relevant results” through the use of
“powerful filters.”yes, that stuff does rather stand out there!! Patrons can access online
versions of the information in question, and are even able to order the physical item, if so
desired. The site is very interactive. This seemed to be a very promising OPAC to use for
the subject search at hand.
Because MNCAT Plus promised “Google-style searching,” the phrase “training for longer
distance bicycle road races” was the first attempted search. There were zero hits even with
no restrictions or limitations on the search. The OPAC did not pick up on any of the words
in this type of search. The search string was too long and did not match anything in the
system. So, the search was refined by the author to “bicycle racing training.” This resulted
in four “hits” of which three were relevant.& that shows the difference between keyword
6
searching & subject heading searching! The OPAC provided search help on the right side of
the screen, suggesting alternative subject headings which looked like Library of Congress
headings. However, the only two headings offered were “Lance Armstrong” and
“cycling.” Both were too broad for this search.yep! The author tried another term –
“bicycle racing” – to try to elicit more “hits.” Two more relevant items were retrieved for the
mandatory five. Though this OPAC offers a lot in terms of search help and online links to
Amazon, etc., this subject was difficult to search without using LC subject headings and,
even at that, few relevant hits were retrieved.very good analysis of the situation!! Results
obtained for this search were as follows:
 Bicycle Road Racing: Complete Program for Training and Competition by
Edward Borysewicz.
 The Science of Lance Armstrong (videorecording) by the Discovery Channel.
 Cycle Racing: Training to Win by Les Woodland
 Greg LeMond’s Complete Book of Bicyclingthat one must be kind of old, he
goes way back now
 All About Bicycle Racing by the editors of Bike World Magazine
The Lamson Library and Learning Commons (Plymoth State University) also offered
links to Amazon and subject searching suggestions on the right side of the page, in the style of
Google Books. This, too, turned out to be a difficult OPAC to search because it took multiple
attempts before a successful search was made for “training for longer distance bicycle road
races.”yes, it’s the age old question of databases built around controlled vocabularies requiring
a facility with the controlled vocabulary in order to be used effectively The subject help on the
right did not specify distance training, so it was really of no use (there was some information on
7
the physiologic aspect of bicycling, but it was not directly relevant to the information being
sought in this search). The term “bicycle racing” produced three relevant hits: Greg LeMond’s
Complete Book of Bicycling, Science of Cycling (Edmund Burke), and The Complete Book of
Long-Distance and Competitive Cycling (TomDoughty and Ed Pavelka and Barbara George).
After changing the search term to “distance cycling,” one more relevant result was
revealed:good The Complete Book of Long-Distance Cycling: Build the Strength, Skills and
Confidence to Ride as Far as You Want (Edumnd Burke, and Ed Pavelka). No other relevant
results were obtained (again, there were books about the physiology of bicycling, but not directly
about distance training). I was able to link to a book preview on Google, which was useful. I’d
also add here that this would be the smallest of the libraries involved so it would be expected that
their holdings would be more limited than the others
The last OPAC searched was that of The Queens Library in New York. After searching
for “bicycle racing training,” this OPAC produced numerous relevant results. It was quite easy
to pick the five required titles: The Bicycle Racing Guide (Rob Van der Plas), Smart Cycling
(Arnie Baker), The Racing Bike Book (Steve Thomas), Bicycling Magazine’s Training for Fitness
and Endurance (Rodale), and Marathon Cycling (Cherie Turner). This was definitely the least
“cluttered” of the OPAC’s viewed so far, and by far the most efficient. There were alternative
subject terms suggested to the left of the results page, but they were not needed because many
results were already displayed. Whether or not this was simply luck is not known, but its
efficiency and ease of use was much appreciated. Good conclusions to draw. I would also say
that as a public library and a VERY large public library, this would be the one that you would
normally expect to be able to offer the most titles on a topic of this nature.
8
The difference between these three OPAC’s was not only in appearance and Lib 2.0
capabilities, but also in the ease and efficiency of finding information that is being sought.
Though the first two OPAC’s offered a great deal in terms of online links and Web 2.0
capabilities, there was a definite lack of relevant search results and some frustration afforded the
user because of having to figure out word combinations that produced the best “hits.”here I
would bring in one additional element that I haven’t seen you mention so far. This would be
using the subject tracings to quickly verify the official LC subject heading for the topic you’re
interested in. I suspect that this might have assisted you. The “Google-style” searching of the
first OPAC produced “Google-style” results – little that was useful! It was interesting to be able
to use the links to Amazon and WorldCat, but what average library patron has that much
time?Those are all valid points & are exactly the types of things that librarians need to be
looking at as these new generation OPACs come along. It’s great to have new features like this.
Yet they also need to produce results. This author would much rather have a streamlined OPAC
that produced many hits in little time, like the Queens Library in New York. and in any test
situation like this we do have to allow for the various libraries involved having collections of
varying quality. In other words, no matter how wonderful an OPAC might be, the library’s
holdings of materials also play a huge role in satisfying a customer’s information needs.
Web/Lib 2.0 is great and does produce a lot of information to the user. However, when high
recall with great precision is desired, then a streamlined OPAC without all of the “bells and
whistles” is the way to go.
I think you did a very good job with this. You essay reveals a most careful and
thoughtful approach to the problem you were presented with. Your strategy was
fine and your analysis of the results quite good as well. The only weakness I could
9
mention would be not trying out the tracings as a possibility. Again, very nice
work. I was most pleased to see how well you handled this.
96
10
2. Suzanne Pilsk has written:
The traditional bibliographic record, a description of what the work is about, is a
surrogate of the work. But once the URL became part of the record, to some
degree the record became the described object. The record itself could now do
more than notify the users of the existence of a resource. It could now deliver it
simultaneously as well. This streamlined delivery mechanism has major implications
for the future of the traditional notion of the library catalog.
Libraries, in many ways, have not been noted for streamlined delivery of
vast quantities of highly sought information, unlike Google and Netflix. In
fact, libraries often have long waiting lists for the most popular books even
as Amazon offers free 6 second for best sellers on the Kindle, and most
interlibrary loan services seem to operate on a model dating back to the
1940’s. Discuss fully what Pilsk is getting at here and what this could
entail for visionary librarians, OPACs and libraries in the future.
THP ～ 11/12/09